Re: is it necessary to disambiguate (using markup) inline notes,citations and original markup? [was] use of <mark> to denote notes in quoted text

2013-09-09 22:06, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>     But within a quotation, whatever the difference might be, it
>     should be retained simply because it is the right thing (morally,
>     scientifically, and legally). Whatever is presented as direct
>     quote should be an exact reproduction of the quoted part of work,
>     except when changes are necessitated and indicated.
> So if I copy some text then take that text and put it in a blockquote, 
> without copying the underlying code it includes, it is wrong " 
> (morally, scientifically, and legally)"?

Yes. Just as it it similarly wrong to quote printed text in a printed 
book so that the use of italic, bolding, or underlining is omitted.

> I find that difficult to accept. In many cases an author has limited 
> control over the way their content is marked up or the person (or 
> machine) doing the is not the author of the text, in many cases where 
> a quote is sourced is not the primary source, in many cases the 
> primary source is not a HTML document.
No work may legally be published without the consent of the author, 
unless its copyright has expired.

A quotation shall, of course, present an excerpt from a primary source. 
For a work that has been published both in printed format and in HTML 
format, you can quote either variant in your HTML document; they can 
both be regarded as primary, even if one of them was published before 
the other.


Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 19:24:56 UTC